Arizona Eagletarian

Sunday, June 22, 2014

In a June 19 Arizona Republic story about Corporation Commission candidates Lucy Mason and Vernon Parker calling out Arizona Public Service and its parent Pinnacle West, we learn about allegations that FOR PROFIT power utility officials are trying to select their own regulators by influencing the election upcoming election.

Vernon Parker and Lucy Mason wrote a letter to APS CEO Don Brandt
this week saying that donations to their opponents would be
inappropriate because the elected officials would regulate the utility
if they win their races.

"It is our opinion that it would be
highly inappropriate for APS or its parent company Pinnacle West
(Capital Corp.) to influence the elections of its regulators in any
way," they wrote.

Mason and Parker want to know if APS or its parent company, Pinnacle West Capital Corp., are funding the committee.

The
independent expenditure committee is chaired by Max Fose, president of
the IWS advertising agency, according to records filed with the
Secretary of State.

It would be illegal for Forese and Little to
coordinate with such an independent committee, however, the committees
can campaign on behalf of candidates, or in opposition of others,
without the candidates' cooperation. Forese and Little's campaign
spokesman declined to comment for this story. [...]

Mason and Parker have staked out a position on rooftop solar that is contrary to APS.

This is unseemly and may or may not be illegal. But it's certainly improper. It's also nothing new. In 2013, APS was caught bribing Democratic state lawmakers Catherine Miranda and Robert Meza with tickets to an Arizona Democratic Party fundraiser. Arizona 2014 was also tied to election campaign mailers (more than a year prior to the election) for Miranda and Meza as thanks for their votes for a bill that was signed into law extending (expanding) polluter protections related to utilities.

From the Republic story cited above, and from my May 2013 blog post, the connection of Republican political operative Max Fose and his IE, Arizona 2014 seem quite apparent.

But, what does all this have to do with COAL needing to be subsidized in order to continue competing with emerging disruptive technological innovation (solar and wind electricity generating capacity) in our state?

As it turns out, Arizona taxpayers take a DIRECT hit by a 30 percent reduction of the transaction privilege or use tax paid for the coal used by IOUs (investor owned utilities). Arizona Revised Statutes § 43-1178 states,

A. A credit is allowed against the taxes imposed by this title for a taxpayer that
purchases coal consumed in generating electrical power in this state. The credit is
equal to thirty per cent of the amount paid by the seller or purchaser as transaction
privilege or use tax with respect to the coal sold to the taxpayer.

And in case that's not a sweet enough incentive on its own, subsection C allows the credit to be carried forward for five years.

C. If the allowable tax credit exceeds the taxes otherwise due under this title on
the claimant's income, or if there are no taxes due under this title, the amount of the
claim not used as an offset against income taxes may be carried forward to the next five
consecutive taxable years as a credit against subsequent years' income tax liability.

So, the next time you hear some hack (or any uninformed citizen) claiming solar and wind can't stand on their own without government subsidy, feel free to show them this.

Additionally, taxpayers and citizens pay an even higher price because the costs of environmental damage (not limited to global warming ramifications), such as pandemic respiratory distress, are borne by the people who are stricken with lung cancer, asthma, emphysema, chronic bronchitis and other related ailments.

So why, again, is it that COAL fired electricity generation can't compete on its own without massive subsidies from Arizona taxpayers?